It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Selective Morality - Zimbabwe Crisis

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Foreign policy is a set of goals that seeks to outline how that particular country will interact with other countries of the world. Its not about "progressing mankind".


I have every right to expect that as a matter of policy the country I live in will do what it can to support those less able and not to standby and watch innocent people starve to death because of some brutal and corrupt regime.

Developed countries have a responsibly to assist in developing and progressing mankind. That is my view. May not be your - that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinions.




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Developed countries have a responsibly to assist in developing and progressing mankind. That is my view. May not be your - that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinions.


This is your opinion on morality, my viewpoint might be is why should i help those that never have helped me and whos situation is no-way my fault? So who gets to decide what is morally right for a country to do. Is it to help mankind first, or help thee people of the country first?

As for zimbabwe, an intervention would probable be doable and succesful. As majority of the population is not supportive to the Mugabe regime. And current Zimbabwean military cabability is not very high. (at least when compared to the "best " times of the Rhodesia). 2-3 Bridages should be enough to decimate the fighting forces loyal to Mugabe and the rest of the military would probably either dissolve of form a basis to a new security force that could be used to help the intervention force.

EU QRF supported by a French Regiment (Preferably 2nd REP) and a commonwealth Brigade might be enough and those forces should be available if needed.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
I have every right to expect that as a matter of policy the country I live in will do what it can to support those less able and not to standby and watch innocent people starve to death because of some brutal and corrupt regime.

So lets say that you were a head of state and that your sense of morality forces you to take action in that nation. Okay?

Further, lets say that it was a quick operation initially and you were able to oust the President, who in your opinion was a monster. However, though you helped bring aid to much of the country, the general population began to resent your nation's presence and it became a low grade guerrilla war with your nation losing soldiers regularly, but not in large conflicts. All of the sudden, many of your own citizens are calling YOU the monster, for suppressing the indigenous people's laws and rights in your efforts to regain control of the nation you went in to help.

So, should we start calling you "George" now, or later?

Policy based on morality is doomed to failure. The nation you help might not share the same morality, and neither might your "allies" or a significant portion of your populace. You cannot have a foreign policy based on your concept of morality.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Thank you, Lady of the Lake, for bringing up this topic. You have helped make more people aware of what is going on. There is much in the world that is still brutal and crazy. I think that is one reason that Jesus said that there will always be poverty.

Will nations do something for "moral reasons"? Yes, if it serves their interests.
This is nothing new. Sadly, Zimbabwe has nothing, at least for the USA, it can offer at the moment. No oil or natural gas. Nor is it on the Neo-conservative agenda, which Cheney signed onto and espouses, leading us into Iraq. It might even have a chance if it were connected to End-Time prophecy.

Remember the starving Biafrans? Yes, the US did support them. The CIA sent in arms, however, not food. And that was probably over oil interests, too.

Mugabe's saying that the movie The Interpreter was a CIA warning to him is just as delusional as Ollie North's claim that Abu Nidal was after him.

I do not want to sound as if all is hopeless. After all, you are making people aware, and in the long run that has an effect.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
However, though you helped bring aid to much of the country, the general population began to resent your nation's presence


What if the general population wanted assistance and we turned our backs?

What if the citizens of the country in question wanted to bring about change and their 'leaders' were murdered and we said nothing on note. This happened.

So, you and I will never reach a point of agreement. That is fine.

Section of an article by Zimbabwe's Unending Agony
Author: Michael J. Gerson, Roger Hertog Senior Fellow

In Zimbabwe, a collapsing economy, malnutrition, high rates of disease and a failing health-care system have produced some of the lowest life expectancies in the world— 34 years for women and 37 years for men. So Mugabe, at age 83, has achieved a rare distinction in the history of tyranny— living twice as long as his citizens are expected to live. According to Coltart, the most vivid image of Zimbabwe is found in the cemeteries, which “are filled to overflowing.” “There are burials at any time of the day,” he told me, “row after row of fresh dirt, with no headstones, because the poor can’t afford them.” “It is the way,” he said, “that I imagine the Battle of the Somme.”

That terrible battle during World War I lasted 142 days. Zimbabwe has suffered for years— and the burials go on.


Removed link it isn't working
[edit on 24/7/2007 by Lady of the Lake]

[edit on 24/7/2007 by Lady of the Lake]

[edit on 24/7/2007 by Lady of the Lake]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Only take a brief snippet and address that part? How about addressing this part before I respond:

Policy based on morality is doomed to failure. The nation you help might not share the same morality, and neither might your "allies" or a significant portion of your populace. You cannot have a foreign policy based on your concept of morality.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Doesn’t each have to be judged on the circumstances that prevail? You can’t say that every circumstance is doomed to failure if morality is one of the guiding principles of policy?

I am supposing that we are educated beings who believe in basic rights. The right to a roof over our heads, food on our table and some level of education and the freedom to live without the fear and being brutalized or murdered. Would most people not want this?

Or am I wrong?

Are you saying that in the case of (as an example) Zimbabwe the populace is comfortable with their current existence and that they don’t share our belief in basic rights? They don’t want to live in peace? Are you also saying that ‘our’ allies don’t share the same beliefs? If this truly is the case what a sad indictment on mankind!!



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf

Developed countries have a responsibly to assist in developing and progressing mankind. That is my view. May not be your - that's fine. We are all entitled to our opinions.


This is your opinion on morality, my viewpoint might be is why should i help those that never have helped me and whos situation is no-way my fault? So who gets to decide what is morally right for a country to do. Is it to help mankind first, or help thee people of the country first?

As for zimbabwe, an intervention would probable be doable and succesful. As majority of the population is not supportive to the Mugabe regime. And current Zimbabwean military cabability is not very high. (at least when compared to the "best " times of the Rhodesia). 2-3 Bridages should be enough to decimate the fighting forces loyal to Mugabe and the rest of the military would probably either dissolve of form a basis to a new security force that could be used to help the intervention force.

EU QRF supported by a French Regiment (Preferably 2nd REP) and a commonwealth Brigade might be enough and those forces should be available if needed.

IMO thats heavily overkill. I dont know how European armies are organized but in the US Army we average about 600 men per battalion with (the regiment per say does not exist in the US Army anymore) with 3 or 4 battalions per brigade plus support troops and some artillery and armor. I say 2 brigade sized units would be enough ... probably the vast majority of which would be British as most EU nations dont have the capability to move troops overseas.

We still havent solved th biggest problem; how do you get these troops to Zimbabwe if all the nations around him support him and say no to an intervention?

[edit on 25-7-2007 by ChrisF231]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
How to enter if all neighbouring countries oppose an intervention?
UN security council decision should be enough to open at least airspace for the troops. And 2nd REP claims that they can deploy to any location in less than 24h (and they have done this kind of operations before). Once an airhead has been opened by the legionaires, airlifht the rest in and continue supplies by air. But i seriously doubt that the neighbouring countries would be willing to take the flak for not obeying an UN SC resolution...



[edit on 25-7-2007 by northwolf]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Lady of the Lake, now you have left the realm of "morality" and decided to discuss "human rights".

Webster's defines Morality as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct" and Human Rights as "rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) internationally regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons". Again they are two different issues, "apples, oranges".



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Lady of the Lake, now you have left the realm of "morality" and decided to discuss "human rights".

Webster's defines Morality as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct" and Human Rights as "rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) internationally regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons". Again they are two different issues, "apples, oranges".



I lol'ed because in some people's minds (including my own) human rights is a moral issue. How can a person have "rights generally accepted by all" without a reason or moral doctrine?

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Bugman82]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
I lol'ed because in some people's minds (including my own) human rights is a moral issue. How can a person have "rights generally accepted by all" without a reason or moral doctrine?

You aren't getting it either.

The code of conduct that you live by, and expect others to live by, will certainly differ from the codes of moral conduct of others. You might think the that the two terms are synonymous, Lady of the Lake might think the that the two terms are synonymous, but Robert Mugabe might have a different definition. As do plenty of others.

Don't automatically assume that everyone shares your compassion. Take a look at the news on any given day, its painfully obvious that plenty don't.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Don't automatically assume that everyone shares your compassion. Take a look at the news on any given day, its painfully obvious that plenty don't.



EXACTLY....but what does the majority desire. It is easy to suppress and control when you own the gun and bullets and the bullies to do your dirty work for you. But does that make it right?

I think not.

Reality It is you who missing the point here. Honestly. It isn't about compassion it is about decency. Bugman8 – thank you.

As to comments made by others about sending in the troops - where was it stated in the beginning of this discussion that we send in troops. The question was - Selective Morality, why the silence.

'We' are all very quick to shout from the roof tops when something happens else where that impacts on us in some way but we are not so quick to defend others and to come out in public forums and say so. Lets face it some of our governments foreign policies have been based on funding the more despotic regimes Zimbabwe (being one).

Robert Magabe most definitely has a different set of moral values but are they ones most decent people and responsible governments would support? No they aren’t? That is the point here.




[edit on 25/7/2007 by Lady of the Lake]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intheshadwos
Maybe we haven't intervened because there are 10s of thousands of Chinese living and working there in the tobacco fields providing the 300 million plus smokers in China.

You know how we still have to bow to the Red Giant.


HARARE - Desperate for foreign currency, the corrupt Mugabe regime is now dishing out prime agricultural land to the Chinese, having grabbed it from commercial farmers under the pretext of giving land to the people.


www.thezimbabwean.co.uk...



I very much doubt that there are Chinese workers in fields in Zimbabwe. Sure they're farming tobacco, but labour in Zim is stupid cheap. I very much doubt that it would be necessary to ship labour there from china!




top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join